THE DAILY WHIP: THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 2013

Complete Consideration of H.R. 624 – Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Rep. Rogers (MI) - Intelligence) (One Hour of debate) The bill requires the director of National Intelligence (DNI) to establish procedures to promote the sharing of information about cyber threat intelligence between intelligence agencies and the private sector. It also requires DNI to establish procedures for protecting privacy and civil liberties with respect to such shared information. The bill provides authority for companies to use this intelligence to protect vital networks. The measure does not prescribe rules that require the sharing of cyber intelligence, either within the private sector or between the private sector and government, and allows the private sector to determine the level of detail of information it shares with the government and other private entities.

In order to further promote information-sharing by the private sector, the bill provides that shared information may not be used by other entities to gain an unfair competitive advantage, and provides liability protection for companies that act in “good faith” and choose to protect their networks. In order to protect privacy and civil liberties, the measure requires the government to remove all personally identifiable information, limits what information companies can share with the government and prohibits the government from requiring companies to give the government information in exchange for receiving cyber threat intelligence. The bill also requires an annual report from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to ensure that none of the information provided to the government is mishandled or misused.

Last year, the House passed a similar cyber security by a 248-168 vote. This year’s bill includes a number of changes to address certain privacy and civil liberties concerns, including removing the broad “national security” allowable purpose, requiring the government to remove personally identifiable information from information shared by private companies, and explicitly prohibiting companies from “hacking back” against cyber attackers.

The Rule makes in order no further general debate. As of last night, the House debated through Amash Amendment #6. The following amendments remain to be debated:

Rep. Sinema Amendment. Adds the DHS Inspector General (IG) to the list of those responsible for submitting an annual report to Congress. Also adds the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to the report recipients, which currently include the congressional intelligence committeesRep. Loretta Sanchez Amendment. Adds language including the Privacy and Civil Rights and Civil Liberties offices of the Department of Homeland Security to the list of those responsible for submitting an annual report to Congress that assesses the privacy and civil liberties impact (if any) of the government’s information sharing under the billReps. LaMalfa/Rogers (MI) Amendment. Clarifies that nothing in the bill authorizes the government to target a U.S. citizen for surveillanceRep. Paulsen Amendment.Establishes the sense of congress that international cooperation should be encouraged where possible under this billRep. Barton Amendment. Clarifies that nothing in the bill permits companies to sell consumers' personal information to other companies for marketing purposesRep. Jackson Lee Amendment. Clarifies that nothing in the bill requires government cybersecurity contractors to provide information about cybersecurity incidents unless they pose a threat to the security of federal government’s informationRep. McCaul Amendment. Designates the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice as the civilian agencies to receive cyber threat and cyber crime information respectively and requires privacy and civil liberties protections to be undertaken

“Republicans spent the last four years criticizing Senate Democrats for failing to pass a budget resolution, and for operating outside of what’s known as ‘regular order’ on Capitol Hill, resorting instead to informal processes and ‘back room deals.’ Earlier this year they even attached a rider to legislation increasing the debt ceiling that would have withheld member pay in the event that either chamber failed to pass a budget. But now that they’ve gotten their way, and the Senate has passed a budget, suddenly they’re the ones squeamish about ‘regular order.’ Instead of promptly appointing negotiators to convene a so-called conference committee and iron out the differences between the wildly different House and Senate budgets, House Republicans are eager to either return to the smoke-filled back rooms of legend, or kill the budget process altogether.”